169th Dedicated - Externals

[Frostie]

I was flying in a server a few days ago, I was 1-1/12 miles behind a bandit and 2 R77 missed from that range. What would cause that to happen? Would it be chaff? from that close and a tail shot?

No they were obviously cheating.:P

[GGTharos]

I was flying in a server a few days ago, I was 1-1/12 miles behind a bandit and 2 R77 missed from that range. What would cause that to happen? Would it be chaff? from that close and a tail shot?

 

Yes. I did make mention of this before ... chaff in LO is evil right now.

[RvETito]

I think MIG has less powerfull radar than flanker.

 

I'm aware of that and what I meant was that sometimes I'm unable to lock

a bandit within estimated lock range. I think that this is a tagret aspect issue rather than jamming, like someone said.

[RvETito]

I was flying in a server a few days ago, I was 1-1/12 miles behind a bandit and 2 R77 missed from that range. What would cause that to happen? Would it be chaff? from that close and a tail shot?

 

According to my personal observations all missiles including IRH have worse PK in tail-on shots. Even when I lead the shot it still misses more often than in head-on aspect.

[Frostie]

The only thing I'm oblivious to is what you're trying to say. That is the first time I've read a sentence where "obviously" is used 4 times, "were" substitutes "where", "stemmed" is mis-spelt and the word "oblivious" is used with two "know"s.

Do you take great care in typing as much crap as possible if I want a fraggin spell checker i'll come and give you a bell.

If it is some sort of one up-manship your after, have it , I care not for your macho posting BS.

Just take a look at some of your own posts ,

 

'You getting confused' , good grammar

 

'me thinks' , Yoda we are

 

Don't try and belittle me with nitpicking crap when you clearly need to keep tabs on yourself it just makes you look a numpty.

 

 

With regards to the not being able to lock contacts my theory is

Weak Radar Signal , at over100km you can't lock a bandit so why not at 40km if he is giving a reduced signal then you shouldn't be able to lock much in the same way as if he was over 100km.

[Ross-impress]

We will run intermittently Externals ON or Off. At least for this week. So if you are one who has wished for externals are OFF in our FAT PIPE server. Be sure to use it when they are. then I will be inclined to keep it that way :smilewink:

 

Wasn't that the topic ??

 

Grtz...Ross....

[GGTharos]

According to my personal observations all missiles including IRH have worse PK in tail-on shots. Even when I lead the shot it still misses more often than in head-on aspect.

 

With or without CMs, or just in general? Also, at what range?

Missiles in LO slow down /hard/ after the rocket is expired if they're forced to do any maneuvers, plus your typical tail shot is against someone doing 800kts running from you so ...

 

Also there's more time to employ CMs and higher sensitivity (At least for chaff) in the rear aspect which is probably why you're seeing this.

Ideally what should be happening is that RH would have -their- highest Pk's head-on (ie. PK's for RH missiles only) and IR would have highest Pk's tail-on.

[RvETito]

Wasn't that the topic ??

 

Actualy yes, it was :) You remind me I forgot my initial question- what's the switching period? I mean, one day with externals on, the next day off and so on..? Then I might make a schedule like this: odd days- 169th, even days- 504 or other :D

[Frostie]

Incorrect. At burn thru range you see the solid contact.

Honestly Rugg we've been through this a million times already, ECM doesn't effect anything after burnthrough.

[RvETito]

With or without CMs, or just in general? Also, at what range?

Missiles in LO slow down /hard/ after the rocket is expired if they're forced to do any maneuvers, plus your typical tail shot is against someone doing 800kts running from you so ...

 

Also there's more time to employ CMs and higher sensitivity (At least for chaff) in the rear aspect which is probably why you're seeing this.

Ideally what should be happening is that RH would have -their- highest Pk's head-on (ie. PK's for RH missiles only) and IR would have highest Pk's tail-on.

 

Regardless the CM's ARH (R-77) and especially IRH (R-73) fly like unguided rockets quiet often when launched in rear hemisphere within visual range (10km). What you say about radar quided missiles having best Pk in head-on and IR in tail-on is correct but that's not exactly the situation in LO. I kind of wait for the target to start beaming or the distance to be less than 5km to send a heater on it, no matter that I have clean LA at 10km or more in tail-on.

[Frostie]

That's pretty much what he said Frost1e, after burn-thru range you get the solid contact (no more jamming strobes)

OK my mistake:) , I thought he was implying about not being able to lock a target after burnthrough because of some ecm.macrotm, again.

[D-Scythe]

According to my personal observations all missiles including IRH have worse PK in tail-on shots. Even when I lead the shot it still misses more often than in head-on aspect.

 

Are the IR missiles falling for flares? Or just being out-maneuvered/out-ran?

 

Do you take great care in typing as much crap as possible if I want a fraggin spell checker i'll come and give you a bell.

If it is some sort of one up-manship your after, have it , I care not for your macho posting BS.

Just take a look at some of your own posts ,

 

'You getting confused' , good grammar

 

'me thinks' , Yoda we are

 

Don't try and belittle me with nitpicking crap when you clearly need to keep tabs on yourself it just makes you look a numpty.

 

Is this the part I'm supposed to come up with a witty comeback? That makes you more grumpy than usual? No thanks, I'll pass.

 

With regards to the not being able to lock contacts my theory is

Weak Radar Signal , at over100km you can't lock a bandit so why not at 40km if he is giving a reduced signal then you shouldn't be able to lock much in the same way as if he was over 100km.

 

Radar return strength increases to the power of 4 as distance decreases. Therefore, a signal at 40 km is just over 39 times (2.5^4) stronger than a signal from 100km. For a target at 40 km to reduce its radar return enough to be comparable to a signal return from a 100 km target, it needs to find a way to reduce the signal strength by 39 times.

 

I really can't think of anything the target can do to reduce the signal strength by 39 times.

 

BTW, there's a reason why sometimes in Russian aircraft you can see a target (at long range) but can't lock it. It's been mentioned before in this thread - Russian radars use amplitude-monopulse antennaes. On the other hand, Western radars don't - they use flat-plate array antennaes with phase monopulse. They should be able to lock anything they can detect/see on the scope.

[TucksonSonny]

 

BTW, there's a reason why sometimes in Russian aircraft you can see a target (at long range) but can't lock it. It's been mentioned before in this thread - Russian radars use amplitude-monopulse antennaes. On the other hand, Western radars don't - they use flat-plate array antennaes with phase monopulse. They should be able to lock anything they can detect/see on the scope.

 

I suppose you never got Falcon 4 (whatever version) :P

[D-Scythe]

I suppose you never got Falcon 4 (whatever version) :P

 

Since when did we start referencing Falcon 4.0? :P

[TucksonSonny]

Since when did we start referencing Falcon 4.0? :P

 

 

Since you can select with the F-16 AN/APG-68 radar in RWS 10, 20, 40, 80 or 160 miles. ;)

Even if a target shows up on the outer limit (40nm mode) you can only lock on it having it about in the middle (about 20nm) with your 120.

Even radar beam bar options are simulated in falcon 4!

[D-Scythe]

Since you can select with the F-16 AN/APG-68 radar in RWS 10, 20, 40, 80 or 160 miles. ;)

Even if a target shows up on the outer limit (40nm mode) you can only lock on it having it about in the middle (about 20nm) with your 120.

Even radar beam bar options are simulated in falcon 4!

 

Hint: Not everything about Falcon 4.0 is right. So again, why are we referencing Falcon 4.0? Just because it doesn't model a flat-plate radar antennae correctly Lock On has to fudge it too?

[TucksonSonny]

Hint: Not everything about Falcon 4.0 is right. So again, why are we referencing Falcon 4.0? Just because it doesn't model a flat-plate radar antennae correctly Lock On has to fudge it too?

 

 

Ok, let suppose that you should be able to lock anything you can detect/see on the scope then still it would not be possible because you can’t lock before ECM burn through!

 

I am about 99% sure that the real F-16 AN/APG-68 radar in RWS shows targets at 70nm but you can never lock them before 50nm…

 

My point is your quote “you should be able to lock anything you can detect/see on the scope” is wrong!

 

In falcon 4/FF3x CobraOne this is not before 40nm for a Mig29S and no lock before about 20nm! (flying the viper)

[GGTharos]

What do you mean 'can't lock'? Do you mean STT?

Because TWS should be trackable as long as you have track-quality returns ... meaning a fairly steady blip.

 

As for showing things 70nm away, well ... maybe if they're airliners or other things of that size, not fighters.

[D-Scythe]

My point is your quote “you should be able to lock anything you can detect/see on the scope” is wrong!

 

And you base this on...what? Falcon 4.0?

 

The math is actually quite simple, don't know why you're so against it - consider the following situation - your radar is using X amount of power scanning 60 cubic km of sky and detects a target at 120 miles. The pilot decides to "lock" this target. The radar "focuses" on the target, thus, it's generating a fine, 1 km^3 beam and diverting all its power into it.

 

Therefore, if the radar, with X amount of power can detect something in 60 cubic km of airspace, why can't it lock something with the same amount of power in 1 km^3 of airspace?

 

Unfortunately, Russian radars are, again, of a different type. Therefore, unlike Western radars, they can't lock whatever they can see.

 

But hey, keep using Falcon 4.0 as a source. I mean, I've seen AH-64s shooting Mavericks in that sim - damn most realistic thing I've ever seen.

[TucksonSonny]

What do you mean 'can't lock'? Do you mean STT?

Because TWS should be trackable as long as you have track-quality returns ... meaning a fairly steady blip.

 

As for showing things 70nm away, well ... maybe if they're airliners or other things of that size, not fighters.

 

I am talking about F-16 AN/APG-68 but I think that the F-15s radar is only stronger radar but based on the same technology/principles

 

RWS = Range While Search (only 1 target)

RWS-SAM (2 targets)

TWS = Track While Scan (16 targets)

 

TWS is a radar mode that tracks multiple targets at the same time. In TWS (AN/APG-68..) you can

Track up to 16 targets simultaneously. That’s the good news. The bad news is that you can’t search

the same volume of airspace in TWS. TWS (AN/APG-68..) only allows you to select +/-10° 4-bar scan

or +/-25° 3-bar scan. With RWS you have all the options 1-bar, 2-bar and 4-bars scan.

 

It takes time for the radar to complete a full sweep across the scope. If you select 4-bar,

it will take longer-in fact, twice as long as in 2-bar-for the radar to complete the sweep and start again.

 

The conclusion: If you have only 1 target and you are sure then it would be very stupid to use TWS

because RWS is about twice as better in this case.

 

With lockon I never used STT (because modeling is wrong and indeed you are better with TWS in lockon)

[TucksonSonny]

And you base this on...what? Falcon 4.0?

 

The math is actually quite simple, don't know why you're so against it - consider the following situation - your radar is using X amount of power scanning 60 cubic km of sky and detects a target at 120 miles. The pilot decides to "lock" this target. The radar "focuses" on the target, thus, it's generating a fine, 1 km^3 beam and diverting all its power into it.

 

Therefore, if the radar, with X amount of power can detect something in 60 cubic km of airspace, why can't it lock something with the same amount of power in 1 km^3 of airspace?

 

Unfortunately, Russian radars are, again, of a different type. Therefore, unlike Western radars, they can't lock whatever they can see.

 

But hey, keep using Falcon 4.0 as a source. I mean, I've seen AH-64s shooting Mavericks in that sim - damn most realistic thing I've ever seen.

 

It would be interesting to get some comments from Rhen on your quote ;)

[Frostie]

Radar return strength increases to the power of 4 as distance decreases. Therefore, a signal at 40 km is just over 39 times (2.5^4) stronger than a signal from 100km. For a target at 40 km to reduce its radar return enough to be comparable to a signal return from a 100 km target, it needs to find a way to reduce the signal strength by 39 times.

 

I really can't think of anything the target can do to reduce the signal strength by 39 times.

 

Im so glad you finally managed to get that off your chest , but I don't understand what it has to do with not being able to lock a target in lockon(which occurs against both human and AI), ive already apologised for using the phrase 'their supreme Beaming skill' , I should have just put 'their supreme skill'.:thumbup:

Being as your on the subject of knowing more than me why don't you explain to the ladies and gents reading why this happens and why its not a cheat, thats the interesting bit.:smilewink:

[ericinexile]

Honestly Rugg we've been through this a million times already, ECM doesn't effect anything after burnthrough.

 

Which is why I think ECM strobing is a legitimate counter.

 

Smokin' Hole

[D-Scythe]

Im so glad you finally managed to get that off your chest , but I don't understand what it has to do with not being able to lock a target in lockon(which occurs against both human and AI), ive already apologised for using the phrase 'their supreme Beaming skill' , I should have just put 'their supreme skill'.:thumbup:

Being as your on the subject of knowing more than me why don't you explain to the ladies and gents reading why this happens and why its not a cheat, thats the interesting bit.:smilewink:

 

I already said I have no idea why this happens - GG mentioned it might be an issue of lagging in MP, but you said you can reproduce it with the AI. I tried with the F-15 so far and couldn't reproduce this - might go for the Crane and Fulcrum next.

 

It would be interesting to get some comments from Rhen on your quote ;)

 

Okay, though I don't see why this is so unbelievable, or the fact why you keep referencing the APG-68 (and not even the real APG-68, but the one in Falcon 4.0).

[TucksonSonny]

 

Okay, though I don't see why this is so unbelievable, or the fact why you keep referencing the APG-68 (and not even the real APG-68, but the one in Falcon 4.0).

 

Ok, do you have a source that explains why your “quote” was not implemented in any version of lomac or falcon?

 

Or a source that demonstrates that your quote is true!

 

Your quote “Western radars should be able to lock anything they can detect/see on the scope”

 

Of course we are not talking about AESA radar ...

Even with an AESA radar: Let suppose it can show an F-22 or a F-117 on your scope doesn’t mean that you can lock it.